| FoolMeNot |
_ Guest editorial, by me, appearing in the
Battle Creek Enquirer, August 14, 1996, Battle Creek, Michigan
Gridlock doesn’t exist -- this is how government is supposed to happen!
The term ‘gridlock’ has been used by many over the course of the last year to describe perceived action and inaction by congress and the president in their attempts to enact laws which best represent the needs of the people. To be in gridlock is to “not have the ability to move in any direction.” Although one might make a case for gridlock in the short term, outcries of a broken political system are dead wrong. The mistake is made when one assigns a time factor to a part of a process where a time factor was intentionally omitted.
At the end of the last session of congress, landmark bills passed through the house and senate. The president signed them. In response to all of this, newspapers were writing stories about a dramatic “shift” to the right, reporting ever-increasing numbers of people rising to support the conservative position in regard to redesigning the welfare program. Other bills signed included portable health insurance, minimum wage increases, and laws governing drinking water. Reaction to these events is predictably mixed depending on economic and social philosophical views of individuals, and organizations.
What was also predictable - and predictable some years ago - was that this shift of vision was going to happen. And, that the Congress of the United States would react to it in much the same way it has done now. Based on a history of varied failed governments and civilizations, the framers of the constitution knew that in order to design a “more perfect union” they had to acknowledge, encourage, and appreciate, the existence of opposing ideas. Also, they had to acknowledge that change is inevitable and that their new nation would be in a constant state of evolution.
They first started with the notion that there needed to exist a platform to hear those opposing ideas. The ideas would come from the people via elected representatives. The representatives would meet as a group to voice the concerns of those people they represented and was to be called the House of Representatives. At this point it could be argued that however the majority voted the issue would become law. The framers, however, knew they needed to provide more checks and balances if the system were to survive the pitfalls of earlier attempts.
So after a simple majority of the people’s representatives (the house) decided a proposal (now called a bill) was worthwhile, it would be scrutinized by a place called the Senate. The Senate would also consist of elected representatives of the people, but far fewer in number. Here there would be seemingly endless debate and tougher rules of passage. This would assure the best possible chance of the bill, in its final form, to evolve into worthwhile legislation for the nation as a whole.
In case the House disagreed with changes the Senate had made in the bill, committees of both houses would meet to iron out differences before sending it on to the president. The next step, whether the president signs it or not, can be passage into law or, if not, the process will have to start all over again. It all depends on the political pressure brought-to-bear on any of the parts - House, Senate, or Presidency.
In all instances political decisions resulting in change most always represent the direct opposite of the status-quo. They will not occur until extremes of the status-quo have been reached. And, as evidenced in national politics today, pressure brought-to-bear on any of the parts of the process will have a profound impact on the outcome. Today, funding to support this nation’ social responsibilities - such as the welfare program - is largely seen as a conservative concern, the perceivedphilosophicalneeds of society - such as health, wage, and water legislation - are seen historically to be high on the liberal agenda. It is these conservative and liberal ideas, coming to us as “being in opposition,” which make for great debates.
Great debates shape this nation’s future, and political pressure exerted on all of the parts influences the outcome.
There has been another great debate. The nation wins! We shall now proceed in a different direction, until such time pressure brought to bear demands change once more.
Gridlock doesn’t exist -- this is how government is supposed to happen!
The term ‘gridlock’ has been used by many over the course of the last year to describe perceived action and inaction by congress and the president in their attempts to enact laws which best represent the needs of the people. To be in gridlock is to “not have the ability to move in any direction.” Although one might make a case for gridlock in the short term, outcries of a broken political system are dead wrong. The mistake is made when one assigns a time factor to a part of a process where a time factor was intentionally omitted.
At the end of the last session of congress, landmark bills passed through the house and senate. The president signed them. In response to all of this, newspapers were writing stories about a dramatic “shift” to the right, reporting ever-increasing numbers of people rising to support the conservative position in regard to redesigning the welfare program. Other bills signed included portable health insurance, minimum wage increases, and laws governing drinking water. Reaction to these events is predictably mixed depending on economic and social philosophical views of individuals, and organizations.
What was also predictable - and predictable some years ago - was that this shift of vision was going to happen. And, that the Congress of the United States would react to it in much the same way it has done now. Based on a history of varied failed governments and civilizations, the framers of the constitution knew that in order to design a “more perfect union” they had to acknowledge, encourage, and appreciate, the existence of opposing ideas. Also, they had to acknowledge that change is inevitable and that their new nation would be in a constant state of evolution.
They first started with the notion that there needed to exist a platform to hear those opposing ideas. The ideas would come from the people via elected representatives. The representatives would meet as a group to voice the concerns of those people they represented and was to be called the House of Representatives. At this point it could be argued that however the majority voted the issue would become law. The framers, however, knew they needed to provide more checks and balances if the system were to survive the pitfalls of earlier attempts.
So after a simple majority of the people’s representatives (the house) decided a proposal (now called a bill) was worthwhile, it would be scrutinized by a place called the Senate. The Senate would also consist of elected representatives of the people, but far fewer in number. Here there would be seemingly endless debate and tougher rules of passage. This would assure the best possible chance of the bill, in its final form, to evolve into worthwhile legislation for the nation as a whole.
In case the House disagreed with changes the Senate had made in the bill, committees of both houses would meet to iron out differences before sending it on to the president. The next step, whether the president signs it or not, can be passage into law or, if not, the process will have to start all over again. It all depends on the political pressure brought-to-bear on any of the parts - House, Senate, or Presidency.
In all instances political decisions resulting in change most always represent the direct opposite of the status-quo. They will not occur until extremes of the status-quo have been reached. And, as evidenced in national politics today, pressure brought-to-bear on any of the parts of the process will have a profound impact on the outcome. Today, funding to support this nation’ social responsibilities - such as the welfare program - is largely seen as a conservative concern, the perceivedphilosophicalneeds of society - such as health, wage, and water legislation - are seen historically to be high on the liberal agenda. It is these conservative and liberal ideas, coming to us as “being in opposition,” which make for great debates.
Great debates shape this nation’s future, and political pressure exerted on all of the parts influences the outcome.
There has been another great debate. The nation wins! We shall now proceed in a different direction, until such time pressure brought to bear demands change once more.
Who is John Galt?
